分类
新西兰 热点话题 编辑推荐 观点与评论

Free Speech: The Foundation That Makes All Other Freedoms Possible

by Jillaine Heather

Key notspeech at the Countering Foreign Interference & Safeguarding Democracy, Sovereignty and Open Societies Symposium – 21 February 2026, Auckland



Good afternoon, everyone.

I’d like to extend a warm and heartfelt welcome to this international symposium focused on Countering Foreign Interference and Safeguarding Democracy, Sovereignty & Open Societies.

My name is Jillaine Heather. I am the Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union New Zealand, and the Free Speech Union is proud and honoured to be co- hosting alongside the Tasman Alliance of New Zealand.

I’d like to acknowledge the Tasman Alliance and “Lao Chen “/ Chen Weijian for organising this conference. It takes courage to build a pro-democracy organisation in any country. It takes particular courage when the regime you are standing up to has a very long reach.

I’d also like to welcome and thank all the speakers who have come from across New Zealand and overseas, and extend a warm welcome to our distinguished guests and speakers from Taiwan, and finally to extend a welcome and thank you to everyone here for showing up today to listen and participate.

Look around this room. You are not alone. Every person here has made a choice to be present, to stand up, to refuse to be silent. That is not a small thing. And the fact that we are here together, from different countries, different communities, different experiences, matters. Because the forces that want to silence us count on us feeling isolated, scared and divided. Today is proof that we are not.

Today you will hear from academics, politicians, journalists, experts, and fellow civil liberty advocates – who have all stood up for democratic freedoms.

But I am not here today as an academic or a policy expert. I am here because Portia Mao reached out to the Free Speech Union a few years ago – and her case is a powerful reminder of why freedom of speech – the ability to criticize, ask questions and disagree – is so important in a functioning democracy – and her case demonstrates how quickly that foundation can be attacked.

WHY FREE SPEECH IS THE FIRST TARGET

Foreign interference does not begin with spies or cyberattacks. It begins with silence.It begins with making speech expensive, risky, and exhausting – until people decide it is easier to say nothing.

Every authoritarian regime in history has understood this. The first thing they go after is not the army, the economy or the courts. It is the right to speak, it is communication. Because if you control what people can say, and the information they have access to, you don’t need to control much else.

That is why free speech is not just one freedom among many. It is the freedom that makes all the others possible.

Without it, you cannot organise.

You cannot protest.

You cannot hold power to account.

You cannot even name what is happening to you.

Every other right – democracy, rule of law, freedom of association – depends on the ability to speak.

Two weeks ago, two investigative journalists in China published an article on WeChat exposing local corruption. Three days later, both were arrested. The charge? “making false accusations” – essentially for writing a news article.

Then the article is deleted. Posts supporting the journalists were removed. And the message is clear: speak, and bear the personal cost. Only silence is tolerated

That is China in 2026. But as everyone in this room knows – some of those tactics are here as well.

PORTIA MAO’S STORY

Many of you know Portia Mao. She emigrated from China over two decades ago, became a journalist, and worked with the Stuff Circuit team on the documentary The Long Game, which exposed CCP interference in New Zealand. By putting her name in those credits, she put a target on her back.

Now what happened next should alarm every person in this room. A man she had investigated – Morgan Xiao, an aspiring politician and ardent CCP supporter – used the Harmful Digital Communications Act to obtain a court order barring Portia from criticising him. The application and court order was made without her knowledge.

The court sent one email – it bounced. Nobody tried again. Portia found out because Xiao was bragging about his victory on a Chinese-language chat forum.

Let me say that again. A journalist in New Zealand was gagged by a court order she never knew about, obtained by a man using a New Zealand law to silence scrutiny of his political activities.

Honestly, you could not make this up.

WHAT THE FSU DID

So, Portia reached out to the Free Speech Union for help. The FSU funded a barrister (her lawyer) to represent her.

In June last year, the judge ruled in Portia’s favour. He found her commentary did not amount to harmful digital communications. He found Morgan Xiao was – and I am quoting the court – “not a vulnerable person.” He warned against the weaponisation of legal tools to silence political criticism.

But Xiao was not finished. He tried the same thing against Justin Wong, a journalist for Stuff. Justin’s crime?

  • He had reposted one of Portia’s articles on LinkedIn.
  • He had also sent Xiao an email asking questions for a story.

The judge dismissed this case, and in her decision, she cited Portia’s case – the precedent the Free Speech Union helped set. The earlier victory directly protected the next journalist.

That is how this works. You fight for one person’s right to speak, and you slowly but surely build a wall that protects everyone who comes after.

And that is why gathering like this matters. Every case we win, every person who stands up, every room like this one – it makes the next act of courage, or defiance a little less lonely and a little less costly.

THE PATTERN

Now, these cases are part of a pattern – and many of you know it far better than I. Within the Chinese community in New Zealand, people who criticise the CCP get labelled “anti-China.” They are abused on Chinese-language social media.Their families back in China are contacted. They are surveilled. They are photographed at events like this one.

I want to be very clear: this should not be happening in New Zealand. New Zealand is not part of China. The political standards of the Chinese Communist Party have no authority here. Every person in this country has the right to criticise any government, any party, and any leader.

That is not a privilege. It is the baseline of a functioning democracy.

The NZ Security Intelligence Service’s 2025 threat report named the People’s Republic of China as the most active state conducting foreign interference in New Zealand. The Director-General said the public would often notice threats before the intelligence services did. – He was talking about you.

And it is not just Chinese born individuals. Three weeks ago, the Chinese Embassy in Wellington publicly condemned the New Zealand Herald for publishing an opinion piece about Taiwan – written by Jonathan Ayling.

A foreign embassy – telling a New Zealand newspaper what it is and is not allowed to print. We issued a media release emphasizing that our media exists to serve a New Zealand audience, not to reflect the sensitivities of overseas states.

WHY THE FSU MATTERS – WHO WE ARE

I want to speak directly about why the Free Speech Union’s work matters so deeply – particularly for diaspora and minority communities.

Portia’s case was not just about one journalist. It was about whether the Chinese community in New Zealand would be allowed to have independent voices, an independent press, and independent thought.

The outcome of the judge’s ruling matters beyond the courtroom. It helps shape how members of the community understand and choose between different values.

It says: in New Zealand, you are free to speak and free to criticise. And if someone tries to silence you, there are people who will stand with you.

Free speech is not a luxury for the comfortable majority nor just a privilege of the powerful (as we so often hear these days). It is the enabling right – the foundational right that makes all other rights usable. And the people who need it most are often the minority cowant to speak directly about why the Free Speech Union’s work matters so deeply – particularly for diaspora and minority communities.

Portia’s case was not just about one journalist. It was about whether the Chinese community in New Zealand would be allowed to have independent voices, an independent press, and independent thought.

The outcome of the judge’s ruling matters beyond the courtroom. It helps shape how members of the community understand and choose between different values.

It says: in New Zealand, you are free to speak and free to criticise. And if someone tries to silence you, there are people who will stand with you.

Free speech is not a luxury for the comfortable majority nor just a privilege of the powerful (as we so often hear these days). It is the enabling right – the foundational right that makes all other rights usable. And the people who need it most are often the minority communities with the least institutional support.

For those who do not know us – the Free Speech Union exists to defend the right to speak, to think, and to question, freedom of speech, conscience and intellectual inquiry

  • mmunities with the least institutional support.

For those who do not know us – the Free Speech Union exists to defend the right to speak, to think, and to question, freedom of speech, conscience and intellectual inquiry

  • We are a registered trade union, which means that we can represent members in workplace freedom of speech disputes.
  • We are non-partisan. We don’t care where you sit politically.
  • We care whether you can speak.

We have written over 120 letters to ministers, regulators, and institutions. We have filed more than 100 submissions. We have supported people who have lost their jobs, faced disciplinary action, or been dragged through the courts for saying what they believe. And it has worked.

We funded Portia’s legal defence and won, setting a precedent that protected the next journalist targeted by the same complainant.

  • We backed a 15-year-old student excluded from his school speech finals for the content of his speech, and the school apologised and invited us in to deliver free speech training.
  • We exposed unlawful police training that treated ordinary opinions as hate incidents
  • We fought hate speech laws and won.
  • We advocated for academic freedom legislation, and the Select Committee adopted most of our recommendations.

These are not abstract wins,

They are people who kept their voices, their jobs, and their dignity.

If you are facing pressure for speaking out – legal threats, workplace consequences, community intimidation – contact us. Become a member, we are a grass roots donor funded organization, support us, refer cases to us.

Every case we are able to take on makes the next person’s voice a little easier.

CHANGING THE LAW

And the good news is that the legal landscape is shifting – and the FSU has been part of making that happen.

The Harmful Digital Communications Act was meant to protect vulnerable people from online bullying. Portia’s case proved it can be weaponised to silence political speech.

In December, Melissa Lee, a Member of Parliament, lodged an amendment bill, developed in close consultation with the FSU, to fix exactly that:

  • stronger protection for political commentary,
  • a public interest defence, and
  • no more gagging people who do not even know they are in court.

And in November last year, Parliament passed the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Act, creating new offences for covert, deceptive, or coercive actions on behalf of a foreign state. You will hear more about this from the speakers directly involved.

These changes signal something important: New Zealand is beginning to take foreign interference seriously, not just as an intelligence problem, but as a threat to democracy (whicThese changes signal something important: New Zealand is beginning to take foreign interference seriously, not just as an intelligence problem, but as a threat to democracy (which is fragile and needs protection), and as a threat to the rights of people in communities like yours.h is fragile and needs protection), and as a threat to the rights of people in communities like yours.

REMOVING THE FEAR

I want to close with something simple. This conference exists because people refused to be silent.

Portia published her journalism because the public had a right to know. She was gagged. She fought back. She won. She is still here.

Justin Wong asked questions for a story. He was taken to court. The case was thrown out. He is still reporting.

Every person in this room who has chosen to speak – despite the risk, despite the cost, despite the pressure – is doing something profoundly important.

Because free speech does not survive on its own. It survives because people insist on using it.

Foreign interference depends on silence. It depends on fear. Every time someone in this room speaks, that silence cracks a little more.

And every time we gather like this – across borders, across communities, across languages – we prove something the authoritarians do not want proved: that the people who believe in freedom outnumber the people who fear it.

You are not alone in this fight. The person sitting next to you is not alone. And neither are we.

Free speech is not given to us by governments. Free speech is the natural condition of a free people. It is what happens when fear is removed.

Our job – the Free Speech Union’s job, your job, all of our jobs – are to speak up individually and collectively to remove the fear.

Thank you.

Jillaine Heather

Chief Executive Officer

Free Speech Union (New Zealand) Incorporated

分类
毛芃作品 热点话题 编辑推荐

对于新西兰反外国干涉法案,您有何提议吗?提交截止时间是今天午夜

目前,新西兰政府正在加强刑法,以帮助警察和其他机构应对外国干涉。

2024年11月14日星期四,司法部长Paul Goldsmith 将反外国干涉法 –《犯罪(外国干涉)修正案》/Crime  (Contering Foreign Interference)Amendment Bill 引入国会。该法案旨在提供一种更有效的手段,使从事意图损害新西兰利益的干涉活动的个人承担责任。

该法案在11月19日在国会通过一读。

眼下,国会司法委员会正在征集《犯罪(外国干涉)修正案》修正案的公众意见

按照立法流程,法案在国会一读后,国会的一个专项委员会 – 司法委员会 – 就公开向全社会征询对修正案的意见,并进行相关的信息收集工作。司法委员会将在2025年的5月19日向国会提交关于该法案的报告,包括对该法案的修改建议,由国会对法案进行二读。

此时,离公众国会司法委员会提交意见的截止日 – 2025年1月16日星期四晚上 11:59 – 还剩下不到一天时间了。


什么是外国干涉?

根据《犯罪(外国干涉)修正案》, 外国干涉是指外国政府(通常通过代理人)以隐蔽、欺骗、腐败或胁迫的手段,意图破坏或颠覆新西兰国家利益的行为。

外国干涉活动可以采取多种形式,例如,一个外国政府可能会试图压制其认为对其权威构成挑战的新西兰个人或社区的观点或和平集会权利。

外国干涉活动对新西兰和我们的社区都是有害的,它可能影响整个国家。例如,影响国家安全、经济、我们的选举或是政府决策。

外国干涉也会影响个人和社区。干涉活动可能会使人们感到不安全,或者害怕做某些事情或说某些话,因为人们会担心外国政府可能会对他们或他们的家人采取某些行动。这是不可接受的,因为我们的法律赋予人们权利和自由,外国政府不应该在这里试图控制人们的活动。


如何理解《犯罪(外国干涉)修正案》

《犯罪(外国干涉)修正案》提供一种手段,以更好地追究个人参与旨在损害新西兰利益的干涉活动的责任。该法案旨在加强法律,以便在外国政府打算以隐蔽、欺骗、腐败或胁迫手段破坏或颠覆新西兰国家利益时更好地应对。

该法案将从三个方面修订 1961 年《刑法》。首先,它将拟议一种新的罪行,将为外国势力或代表外国势力采取的隐蔽、欺骗、腐败或胁迫行为定为犯罪,这些行为旨在故意鲁莽地损害新西兰的广泛核心利益。

该法案还将列出一个人在哪些情况下需要效忠新西兰主权,以便根据 1961 年《刑法》对拟议罪行进行指控,从而提供更大的确定性。

该法案还将加强对未经授权披露政府信息的责任追究;此外,该法案还将修订《2012 年搜查和监视法》中现有的无证搜查权,赋予当局调查拟议罪行的权力。


代表或效力外国势力的两种不当行为:

《犯罪(外国干涉)修正案》第78AAA规定,为外国政府或代表外国政府所进行的不当行为中,包括“故意行为””鲁莽行为“,有这两者行为中的任何一种,都可被判入狱。

1、故意行为

(1) 如果符合以下条件,则构成犯罪:

(a) 此人代表或为外国势力从事不当行为;以及
(b) 此人知道或理应知道他们从事的行为是代表或为外国势力而为;以及
(c) 此人从事该行为的意图是危害受保护的新西兰利益

(2) 违反第(1)款的人,如果被定罪,可被判处不超过14年的监禁。

———————–

2、鲁莽行为

(3) ) 如果符合以下条件,则构成犯罪:

(a) 此人代表或为外国势力从事不当行为;以及
(b) 此人知道或理应知道他们从事的行为是代表或为外国势力而为;以及
(c) 此人在从事该行为时对其是否可能危害受保护的新西兰利益持鲁莽态度。

(4) 违反第(3)款的人,如果被定罪,可被判处不超过10年的监禁。


何为外国势力

外国势力指以下任意一项:

(a) 外国政府;
(b) 外国公共机构;
(c) 外国公共企业;
(d) 外国公职人员;
(e) 外国国内的政党,该政党构成、是外国政府的一部分或代表外国政府;
(f) 作为政治或公职人员的身份行事的个人;
(g) 其主要目的是支持第(e)项所述政党的公司、团体、组织或协会。


受保护的新西兰利益

根据《犯罪(外国干涉)修正案》,一个人的行为如果危害受保护的新西兰利益,就构成犯罪。那么,受保护的新西兰利益 (protected New Zealand interest)指的的是什么呢?

《犯罪(外国干涉)修正案》明确了下列内容中的任何一项都是受保护的新西兰利益:

(a) 新西兰的安全或国防:

(b) 新西兰的经济福祉:

(c) 新西兰的国际关系:

(d) 新西兰行政、司法或立法机构的运作:

(e) 行使或履行新西兰法律赋予或强加给个人或机构的任何公共职能、职责或权力:

(f) 根据新西兰法律公平公正地进行任何选举、投票或全民公投:

(g) 任何人在新西兰行使新西兰法律承认的任何人权、公民权利、政治权利或民主权利的能力:

(h) 以下人员的安全或保障:(i) 新西兰境内任何人;或(ii) 新西兰任何公民,无论该人是否在新西兰;或(iii) 任何通常居住在新西兰的人,无论该人是否在新西兰。


我该如何表达我的意见?

国会司法特别委员会正通过“征求意见”的方式希望公众分享他们对该法案的看法。

如果您想对法案提出自己的建议,请访问:https://bills.parliament.nz/v/6/5c7f002d-e4b4-4573-5563-08dd042d0cd2?Tab=history

委员会通常会将公众提交的意见发布在议会网站上供公众浏览。在提交意见之前,如果您不希望您的意见被公开发布,您可以要求委员会对您的意见保密。需要在委员会同意后方可提交您的意见。

提交截止日期为 2025 年 1 月 16 日星期四晚上 11:59。


分类
新西兰

新西兰安全情报局《2024 年安全威胁环境》报告的案例研究

(本文信息源自新西兰政府民族社区部网站)

这些案例研究来自于新西兰安全情报局|《新西兰的安全威胁环境》 。在这些案例研究中,“外国”是指 新西兰以外的任何国家。这个词是用于指新西兰以外的国家。

新西兰安全情报局(NZSIS)将外国干涉定义为外国国家(通常通过代理人来执行)意图通过欺骗性、贪腐性或胁迫性手段来影响、破坏或暗中损害新西兰的国家利益的行为。正常的外交活动、游说和其他诚实、公开地获取影响力的努力不被视为干涉。


案例研究 1

2023年,某外国通过一个新西兰的联系人向当地市议会施压,表示如果市议会同意限制某个特定宗教团体参加一项社区活动,他们将帮助资助这个活动。该外国希望表明该组织在该国被禁止,并且该组织的活动“违背”了该国侨民的意愿。


案例研究 2

NZSIS知道有几位代表某外国的外交官与一些与该国侨民群体有关联的新西兰学生团体保持着关系这些外交官利用这种关系来影响团体的成员接纳,以确保当选领导职务的人在政治上忠于该外国。他们选择掩盖与学生团体的关系,以避免被指责干涉学术界。他们的这种行为就是外国干涉的一个例子。他们试图控制左右这些团体及其成员如何看待该国,并意图甄别出异见人士。


案例研究 3

少数外国收集新西兰特定社区的信息。通常,这些国家会在新西兰利用社区成员监视被该外国视为持不同政见者的人,并收集有关他们的个人信息。这些信息可用于采取报复行动,例如取消签证或将仍居住在该外国的家庭成员设为目标。2023年,某外国拒绝了一名试图去该国探亲的新西兰人的签证申请,因为该人与该国不喜欢的一个社区团体有联系。


分类
新西兰 热点话题 编辑推荐

新西兰政府民族社区部:外国干涉损害少数族裔社区的权利和自由

(本文信息源自新西兰政府民族社区部网站)

新西兰安全情报局(NZSIS)将外国干涉定义为一个外国国家(通常通过代理人来执行)意图通过欺骗性、贪腐性或胁迫性手段来影响、破坏或暗中损害新西兰的国家利益的一种行为。正常的外交活动、游说和其他诚实、公开地获取影响力的努力不被视为干涉。

在本信息册中,“外国”是指新西兰以外的任何国家。这个词是用于指新西兰以外的国家。


外国干涉损害少数族裔社区的权利和自由

外国干涉是指外国试图干涉新西兰以实现其自身目标。这些外国想要控制和改变新西兰的社会、利益和行为。他们这样做是为了获得更多的影响力和控制。

外国干涉损害新西兰的独立、民主、经济、声誉和社区。新西兰的少数族裔社区可能会受到来自外国的不受欢迎的关注,使他们感到不安全,并损害他们的权利和自由。

国家之间正常的外交活动不属于外国干涉。


少数族裔社区会如何受到外国干涉?

少数族裔社区受到的外国干涉可能不会被轻易察觉。以下是外国政府或其代理人在新西兰进行外国干涉的一些示例:

  • 试图控制和恐吓社区或社区组织/团体
  • 拒绝处理或签发官方证件,以此来骚扰、恐吓和控制社区及其行为
  • 取消或威胁取消新西兰境内人员的签证、护照或其他官方证件,以此来骚扰、恐吓和控制社区及其行为
  • 威胁新西兰境内人士或其居住在海外的家人(包括通过社交媒体进行威胁和骚扰)
  • 违反人们的意愿强迫他们返回原籍国
  • 外国对社区进行非法监视和监控,以威胁或恐吓人民
  • 试图通过威胁或恐吓手段阻止某些团体或社区公开分享他们与该外国不同的观点或意见
  • 试图阻止在新西兰举办的一些活动,从而限制人们表达被一个外国政府所反对的观点和信仰
  • 向新西兰社区施加来自外国政府的威胁
  • 试图改变选举和其他民主程序的运作方式

(本文信息来自新西兰政府民族社区部 Ministry of Ethnic Communities)


分类
新西兰 热点话题 编辑推荐

新西兰政府民族社区部:少数族裔社区人士所经历的外国干涉示例

(本文信息源自新西兰政府民族社区部网站)

这里是一些少数族裔社区所经历的外国干涉的例子。这些例子是来自于一些少数族裔社区向少数族裔社区部分享的经历

在这些例子中,“外国”是指新西兰以外的任何国家。这个词是用于指新西兰以外的国家。


示例 1

社区的成员经常希望回到自己的原籍国探亲访友。为此,他们可能需要使用领事服务。这些服务由一个国家的大使馆或领事馆向其住在国外的公民提供,包括签发护照、签证、旅行证件以及处理其他法律事务。

新西兰某个族裔社区的成员被领事馆工作人员告知,如果他们与批评该国的新西兰团体或人员有联系,他们将无法更换新护照或获得签证。这让该社区成员感到无法表达自己的观点、与某些人交谈、进行抗议或加入一些团体。这些限制使这一新西兰社区感到进退两难,感到被该国所控制。当人们无法旅行去探望家人和朋友时,这会对他们的家庭和他们的幸福感产生很大的影响。


示例 2

在某社区,一个礼拜场所成为外国干涉的目标。一位新成员,看上去非常虔诚,开始积极参与该社区的宗教活动。该人开始频繁谈论政治并告诉人们要支持自己原籍国的政府。该人希望在布道中加入政治内容。新成员还试图阻止人们批评该国。他们做这一切都是应那一国家的要求。


当那个新成员在场时对那个外国政府做出批评的社区成员会收到来自短信和社交媒体的匿名威胁。在那个新成员到来之前,这种情况没有发生过。该社区怀疑这名新成员正在向那个国家汇报情况。他们看到这些问题都是在该新成员加入并试图让人们支持那个国家之后才出现的。这种情况使人们感到不安全,彼此不信任。情况变得让该社区的成员很难在这个礼拜场所无隔阂地相聚和专注于他们的信仰。


示例 3

在某个社区中,人们注意到社区的一名成员有可疑行为。这个人似乎总是在询问社区里其他人的政治观点和活动。社区发现,此人被该外国要求向其驻新西兰大使馆举报那些批评原籍国政府的人。

一些与此人交谈过并批评过该国家的社区成员遇到了意想不到的问题,例如签证问题以及在抵达原籍国时在机场受到盘问。这种事在他们身上以前从来没有发生过。他们认为发生这些问题是因为他们与该社区成员的谈话被报告给了大使馆。这让社区里的人感到恐惧和心怀戒备,所以他们不再表达自己的真实观点。


示例 4

一名批评过其原籍国的活动人士在返回该国时受到当局的伤害。新西兰的社区听说了这件事,非常担心这件事发生在他们认识的人身上。

几个月后,在新西兰,一名社区成员收到了威胁短信,警告他们如果出国旅行要小心。他们在新西兰期间曾一直公开评论其原籍国的人权问题。现在,他们非常担心回去探望家人以及在可能执行其原籍国政府的逮捕令的国家停留。

他们原籍国的政府官员登门找他们在该国的家人,现在他们的家人要求他们在新西兰停止公开评论人权问题。这种压力使该社区成员停止了与家人的联系,因为他们担心家人的安全。他们还担心自身在新西兰的安全和言论自由。


示例 5

一名经常在社交媒体上公开批评某外国的社区成员遭遇了外国干涉。他们的个人信息,例如地址、电话号码和电子邮件,被发布到网上——这被称为“人肉搜索”。进行人肉搜索的人是应外国的要求而这样做的。该社区成员收到了威胁电话和短信。他们的社交媒体账户也收到了很多辱骂性评论。该社区成员感到非常害怕和不安全。

他们后来发现,人肉搜索是由在新西兰为该外国工作的人所为。该社区成员被人肉搜索是为了恐吓他们,以使他们停止在社交媒体上公开批评该外国。他们停止了在社交媒体上表达自己的观点和公开说活。

(本文信息来自新西兰政府民族社区部Ministry of Ethnic Communities)


分类
新西兰 热点话题 编辑推荐

新西兰国会引入反外国干涉法案:哪些“不当行为”属于外国干涉行为?

20241114日星期四,司法部长Paul Goldsmith 将反外国干涉法 –《犯罪(外国干涉)修正案》/Crime  Conturing Foreign InterferenceAmendment Bill 引入国会/。根据这一法案, 外国干涉是指外国政府(通常通过代理人)以隐蔽、欺骗、腐败或胁迫的手段,意图破坏或颠覆新西兰国家利益的行为。

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith / NZ Herald photograph by Mark Mitchell

根据《犯罪(外国干涉)修正案》法案,下述行为中的任何一种都属于为外国干涉服务的“不当行为(improper conduct)。“

1、隐蔽性质的行为,包括

(A) :隐瞒某人的行为或身份:

(B) :掩盖某种联系或关系的存在:

这不包括在正常业务、职业或职业过程中为合法目的而进行的任何此类行为(如,保护商业秘密、商业敏感信息、记者消息来源或法律特权通信)。


2 属于欺瞒性质的行为,包括:

(1) :歪曲或混淆某人采取行动或不采取行动的目的:

(2) :未能说明依据任何陈述采取行动或不采取行动的后果:


3、属于胁迫性质的行为,包括:

(2) 使他人无法获得或限制他人获得其本应有权享有的财产或服务:


4、属于腐败性质的行为,包括滥用某人的职位或权力,以实现以下目的:

(2) 获取金钱利益或个人利益。


  • 毛传媒编译